Advisers at risk over asset-based feesBY BEN COLLINS | THURSDAY, 10 JAN 2013 2:55PMAdvisers might need to change the way that they charge asset-based fees, which can create conflicts of interest, said finance consulting group The Fold. |
Editor's Choice
AIA Australia rejigs retail team, appoints new lead
|AIA Australia's restructure of its retail business will see two senior leaders depart while a new chief retail insurance officer has been appointed to take charge of the next phase of growth.
JANA launches private credit trust
|JANA is expanding its investment trust offering with the launch of an institutional-quality private credit solution.
FAAA welcomes 'widow's tax' changes in CGT, negative gearing reforms
|FAAA says it welcomes the legislative changes aimed at addressing the so-called "widow's tax," noting the amendments will protect grieving families and individuals navigating relationship breakdowns from unintended tax consequences.
ART strikes $883m QLD Westfield deal
|Australian Retirement Trust (ART) has agreed to acquire a 50% interest in Brisbane's Westfield Mt Gravatt from Scentre Group for $882.5 million, in what is expected to be Australia's largest single-asset retail transaction this year.
Further Reading
Products
Featured Profile

Andrew Gregory
CHIEF ADVICE OFFICER
UNISUPER
UNISUPER
After 25 years, Andrew Gregory remains motivated by the impact financial advice can have on Australians' lives. As UniSuper's chief advice officer, he is not slowing down on any of his current ambitions. Matthew Wai writes.







The only good news I got about my investements in the GFC was that my adviser's fees had come down along with the asset values - thank goodness. Now that's what I call in my best interests.
It never ceases to amaze me that some people cannot work out that a set dollar fee will always equate to a percentage of a portfolio, regardless of how you dress it up. Its simple mathematics. Sorry folks, some people need to go back to primary school.
If advisers should not charge as a % of assets then the rest of the funds management industry should not do so either. Our firm divides an ongoing fee between strategy advice (dollar based) and investment / AA advice (% based fee). Our implementation fees are project / time based. For investments, you have to have skin in the game to build a clients portfolio. On the business side, would you rather have your fees increasing over time at CPI, or linked to the markets? I know what is more profitable in the long term.